Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

Peter Clark wrote:

>On Monday 21 April 2003 04:35 pm, Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
>
>>It seems to me that most of the languages discussed
>>in this mailing list are not languages at all, but
>>names of languages that exist only in the imagination
>>of the person who invented the names.
>>
>>
>        Au contraire--while many conlangs are still in the tweaking and testing
>stage, there are many "real" conlangs (which in itself is a misleading term).
>
>
>
>>I doubt a
>>language can be used for simple everyday communication
>>unless it has a vocabulary of at least 1000 words.
>>Has  anyone in this mailing list made a real conlang?
>>
>>
>        Yes, and I expect you will be hearing from them shortly.
>
>
>
>>Making a real language is a huge effort, almost like
>>building a pyramid. Team work is a necessity, and yet
>>there is not much team work among the conlangers.
>>
>>
>        Probably because all conlangs that are created by a committee die a rather
>sudden death. In the case of conlangs, team work is a great hinderance,
>rather than a help. All the great conlang masterpieces have been solo
>performances; I can't think of any committee conlang that would qualify as a
>"masterpiece," although I suspect that some would disagree with me. (I.e.,
>NGL, Folkspraak, etc. But NGL is moribund and I'm not really sure of the
>status of Folkspraak.)
>
I don't know about committees, but if I knew someone in person who was
interested in it I think it might be fun to do an effort with them (a
two person effort not a large group). If you have one other person
working on the same thing then you don't get as much time wasting as in
a commitee and you'd have someone to practice speaking your conlang to
who was just as interested in it as you were.

Reply